has been proved that there is no necessity for sin, to plainly state the Scriptures upon which I base the teaching of deliverance from all sin. I will quote a few passages of Scripture upon which I rely, and cite them in the following order:

"The above passages of Scripture-a few out of a very large number-will prove to any open mind the attainability of entire sanctification in this life.

"In addition to this column of Scripture, I could not do better than add a few words from one whose opinion, with many of the readers of this paper, will

rank second only to Scripture. The late Dr. Dale, in his Christian Doctrine, says:

"Devout men have discovered that, in some wonderful way, the death of Christ has given them the power to die to sin, just as they have discovered that in His life they have the power to love God and live righteously. They have learnt that the destruction of evil within us is the effect and fulfilment in ourselves of the mystery of Christ's death, as the development of our positive holiness is the manifestation of the power of His life.'

"In conclusion, let me ask the question, Why should any true-hearted man or woman be either afraid of or averse to salvation from all sin? Is not sin the cause of all present misery, and the greatest evil on this side hell? If so, does it not follow that complete deliverance from it is the greatest blessing on this side heaven, and one to be earnestly sought and eagerly accepted?"

In the same copy of the British Weekly there appeared the following letter from Professor Rendel Harris, Fellow of Clare College, Cambridge:

"To the Editor of the British Weekly.

"MY DEAR FRIEND,-I observed in your last issue, in the midst of some statements with regard to Mr. Reader Harris' views on Sanctification, a remark that Reader Harris was not to be confounded with Rendel Harris ! While I was grateful for your vigilance, which threw the editorial aegis over my orthodoxy, and protected it from the strain of severe criticism to which the other R. H. was liable, I was by

no means sure that it was honest on my part to accept your kind offices without a word of explanation. I find upon examination that Reader Harris and myself are closely agreed in the doctrine of holiness, and I hope also experimentally united in that which results from a hunger and thirst after the same. We are also agreed in believing that nothing but an enlarged experience of the power of Christ to some men will ensure the continuance of the Church as the guiding light of humanity. In plain English, that the future of religion is with the Holiness people, as the past has certainly been. But if we are thus agreed, I ought not to claim too careful a distinction from one who is so closely my brother in the Faith and Patience of Jesus.'

One other thing may I say (and I do it with an accurate prevision of the risk that one runs of criticising an editor in his own paper), was it quite worthy of the British Weekly to dwell so minutely upon the moral difficulties involved in the sanctification of a lawyer? Why should it be more difficult for a lawyer to stand perfect and complete in all the will of God, than for a recluse to whom the problems of good living are almost entirely subjective? Or why should either be difficult in the view of the forces with which we have to do? With sincere thanks to you for many and oft-repeated kindnesses, which memory writes 'where she may turn the page to read them,'

"I am, sincerely yours,

"J. RENDEL HARRIS."

CHAPTER VIII.

"SINLESS PERFECTION," "PEARSALL-SMITHISM,"

AND DR. WALLER.

THE Rock next published an article seeking to

connect the Pentecostal League with what they described as "Pearsall-Smithism," and charging me with teaching sinless perfection. The following is part of my reply:

"THE SINLESS PERFECTION DISCUSSION.

"REPLY BY MR. READER HARRIS, Q.C.

[We admit with pleasure Mr. Harris's reply to our article, as it is important that the position taken up by the Pentecostal League in this matter should be clearly understood and widely known.-ED., Rock.]

"The article in last week's Rock on the above

subject once more illustrates the remarkable fact that, in spite of our repeated disclaimers, good people can persist in asserting that the Pentecostal League, comprising within its membership so many prominent Christians of all denominations, teaches sinless perfection.'. . . We absolutely and emphatically deny that we hold or teach 'sinless perfection,' and we can heartily subscribe to Article xv. of the Church of

England. As a matter of fact, we simply hold and teach the same doctrine of present entire sanctification by faith which John and Charles Wesley, John Fletcher, and many other eminent clergymen of the Church of England have for the last 150 years held and taught as being in harmony with the word of God, and with the Book of Common Prayer.

"The Pentecostal League has nothing to do with 'Pearsall-Smithism.' The Keswick Convention is the outcome of the Oxford Convention of September, 1874, and the Brighton Convention of June, 1875, which were held under the presidency of Mr. Pearsall Smith, with whose teaching, as reproduced to-day at Keswick by some of his disciples, we do not agree."

After dealing with other matters, the article concluded:

"From what is Christ a Saviour, if not from sin; and if He be a perfect Saviour, must He not be a Saviour from ALL sin? If the sorest need of the Christian is to be delivered from the carnal mind, the inward sin, Christ's salvation must either meet that need or be, to that extent, a failure!

"The proper field for this discussion is not, as implied in the article, whether or not any individual Christian lives unintermittently without committing sin. That is a matter between his own conscience and God, and he is not called upon to give account of himself in this respect to his fellow-men.

What we ought to discuss is this: Has God made